Thread Reader helps you read and share Twitter threads easily!
I'm @ThreadReaderApp a Twitter bot here to help you read threads more easily. To trigger me, you just have to reply to (or quote) any tweet of the thread you want to unroll and mention me with the "unroll" keyword and I'll send you a link back on Twitter 😀
— Thread Reader App (@threadreaderapp) November 25, 2017
X thread is series of posts by the same author connected with a line!
From any post in the thread, mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll
Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us easily!
Practice here first or read more on our help page!
Recent
I'm making a very serious point here. The way natural ecosystems and biodiversity, support our societies and economies, has never been systematically studied, despite us destroying the natural systems our lives depend on, and no one is the slightest bit interested in that?
1/3
1/3
Very few people, almost no one, is aware of what I'm saying here. Most people, including most scientists, wrongly assume somewhere it's known, how natural ecosystems and biodiversity sustain us. That there is expertise in this. But where is it? The cat got your tongue?
2/3
2/3
In my lifetime of investigating this, the only people I've come across who truly understand the total unsustainability of our modern systems, and how natural ecosystems and biodiversity sustain us, are indigenous cultures. Our culture seems free of this insight.
3/3
3/3
I joined an ICE watch training held by Defend the 612 organizers in Minneapolis on January 8, before they began taking additional steps to conceal their identities and activities.
In the training, organizers described their goal as impeding ICE operations. They downplayed risks, delegitimized law enforcement, and encouraged participants to take risks. 🧵
In the training, organizers described their goal as impeding ICE operations. They downplayed risks, delegitimized law enforcement, and encouraged participants to take risks. 🧵
Defend the 612 used Renee Good’s death as a recruitment opportunity. On the evening of January 7, they advertised an “emergency vigil” for Good, where fliers were distributed directing attendees to sign up for ICE watch on their website.
This recruitment appeared to work. Andrew Fahlstrom, who led the January 8 training, is a longtime activist with the tenant organizing group Inquilinx Unidx Por Justicia (IX) and treasurer of Sky Without Limits.
He said the group had gained 1,000 new signups and stated that the purpose of the meeting was to “grow the number of people on the streets.”
He said the group had gained 1,000 new signups and stated that the purpose of the meeting was to “grow the number of people on the streets.”
Kevin MacDonald (research):
Kevin MacDonald (evolutionary psychologist) | Grokpedia
grokipedia.com/page/Kevin_Mac…
grokipedia.com/page/Kevin_Mac…
After months of planning, we're excited to announce 'The Polymarket' is coming to New York City.
New York's first free grocery store.
We signed the lease. And we donated $1 million to Food Bank For NYC — an organization that changes how our city responds to hunger. 🧵
New York's first free grocery store.
We signed the lease. And we donated $1 million to Food Bank For NYC — an organization that changes how our city responds to hunger. 🧵
As a part of our mission of giving back to the city we call home, we’ve donated $1 million to @FoodBank4NYC to help fight food insecurity across all five boroughs.
Their mission is simple & inspirational: empower every New Yorker to achieve food security for good.
Their mission is simple & inspirational: empower every New Yorker to achieve food security for good.
The Polymarket is fully stocked. No purchase required.
We're open to all New Yorkers. A real, physical investment in our community.
The Polymarket's grand opening is on February 12th @ noon ET.
We're open to all New Yorkers. A real, physical investment in our community.
The Polymarket's grand opening is on February 12th @ noon ET.
Trump Deputy AG Says, ‘It’s Not a Crime to Party With Mr. Epstein,’ as Questions Mount Over Trump’s Associations
Deputy AG treats “not illegal” as the standard for presidential leadership.
🧵1/3: When Todd Blanche, Donald Trump’s former personal defense attorney and now Deputy Attorney General, said on Fox News’ The Ingraham Angle that “it’s not a crime to party with Mr. Epstein,” he was technically correct—and revealing just how empty that defense is.
Criminal law sets the minimum threshold for prosecution; it does not set the standard for leadership, competence, or judgment—least of all for the presidency of the United States.
When a senior Justice Department official retreats to the narrowest possible legal framing to defend social association with a convicted child sex offender, he is not answering the question being asked. He is avoiding it.
…eintellectualistofficial.substack.com/p/trump-deputy…
Deputy AG treats “not illegal” as the standard for presidential leadership.
🧵1/3: When Todd Blanche, Donald Trump’s former personal defense attorney and now Deputy Attorney General, said on Fox News’ The Ingraham Angle that “it’s not a crime to party with Mr. Epstein,” he was technically correct—and revealing just how empty that defense is.
Criminal law sets the minimum threshold for prosecution; it does not set the standard for leadership, competence, or judgment—least of all for the presidency of the United States.
When a senior Justice Department official retreats to the narrowest possible legal framing to defend social association with a convicted child sex offender, he is not answering the question being asked. He is avoiding it.
…eintellectualistofficial.substack.com/p/trump-deputy…
2/3: The question is not whether it was illegal to attend a party. The question is what it says about judgment when powerful adults continue to associate with a man whose abuse of minors was widely known and publicly documented by the mid-2000s. Saying “it’s not a crime” is not a defense of competence. It is a concession that no higher standard is being asserted.
Blanche’s response relies on a category error. Yes, social association is not, by itself, a crime. It never has been. It is not a crime to email a criminal. It is not a crime to attend a dinner where a criminal is present. The law is deliberately narrow, because it must be. Guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and association alone cannot satisfy that standard.
But the presidency is not governed by the criminal code. It is governed by judgment, discretion, and the ability to recognize disqualifying circumstances before they harden into irreversible failure. Presidents are not evaluated on whether they barely cleared the threshold for indictment. They are evaluated on whether they exercised discernment when warning signs were obvious and alternatives were available.
Jeffrey Epstein was not an ambiguous figure. He was a convicted sex offender whose exploitation of minors was established beyond dispute. Long before his 2019 federal arrest, and following his 2008 plea involving a minor, his reputation was widely known. His conduct was not a rumor circulating in dark corners; it was a matter of public record.
Beyond the facts established in court, there are additional allegations reflected in civil filings and document releases. They remain unresolved and should not be treated as proven.
A serious argument does not rely on them, and this one does not need to. Even stripped to the minimum of adjudicated reality, Epstein was a man any competent adult with power and options should have avoided. The claim that association was legal does nothing to alter that judgment.
John Wayne Gacy and Jeffrey Dahmer were extreme cases: serial killers whose crimes unfolded over time, involved multiple victims, and left lasting harm not only to those they murdered but to families and communities permanently marked by that violence.
Hypothetically, it was not itself a crime to have spent time with them; mere association, standing alone, is not a prosecutable act. But once the scope of their conduct became known, continued social association would have signaled a profound failure of judgment. That is why comparisons to figures like Gacy or Dahmer are clarifying rather than reckless.
They test judgment, not legality. Society instinctively understands that continued social association with known perpetrators of extreme harm would be disqualifying on its face, even absent criminal liability for the associate. In practice, no elite social migration followed their convictions; association collapsed because judgment reasserted itself.
Objections to the comparison misunderstand its purpose. The analogy is not about method or spectacle, nor about body count. It is about the scale and duration of harm, the credibility of victim testimony, and what was reasonably knowable to those in a perpetrator’s orbit.
After Gacy and Dahmer were exposed, social association ended. Epstein’s case unfolded differently. He was convicted of abusing a minor, later charged by federal prosecutors with sex trafficking underage girls, and accused by numerous victims of operating a years-long system of recruitment, coercion, and abuse—yet he remained socially connected to wealthy and powerful figures long after his conviction.
Legal experts, investigators, and civil filings have long warned that the full scope of Epstein’s conduct may never be known, and that the number of victims likely exceeds those publicly identified. Even without proof of homicide, the scale, duration, and persistence of the harm alleged—and the fact that it was publicly knowable—place Epstein squarely in the category of figures any competent adult should have recognized as morally disqualifying to associate with.
That is what makes the Epstein case more disturbing, not less: the failure was not merely individual, but collective.
After Gacy and Dahmer were exposed, they became social pariahs; association ended because judgment reasserted itself. After Epstein’s conviction involving a minor, the opposite occurred. He remained socially embedded among wealthy and powerful figures, signaling that status, access, and utility were permitted to outweigh the known abuse of children.
That normalization—treating a convicted child sex offender as a peer rather than a warning sign—is the moral failure at issue. If a public figure were photographed repeatedly socializing with John Wayne Gacy after his crimes were known, no serious person would defend it by saying, “Well, it wasn’t illegal.” The response would be simpler and more damning: what does that say about his judgment?
That distinction is precisely what Blanche’s defense erases—and the erasure itself is the harm. The analogy is not about proving criminal guilt by proximity; it is about recognizing that certain associations are morally discrediting on their face, and that adults entrusted with power are expected to recognize when proximity itself signals indifference to grave harm.
By retreating to legality alone, Blanche collapses moral judgment into criminal liability and presents the minimum standard for indictment as if it were an adequate standard for leadership. (see rest of essay at link)
…eintellectualistofficial.substack.com/p/trump-deputy…
Blanche’s response relies on a category error. Yes, social association is not, by itself, a crime. It never has been. It is not a crime to email a criminal. It is not a crime to attend a dinner where a criminal is present. The law is deliberately narrow, because it must be. Guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and association alone cannot satisfy that standard.
But the presidency is not governed by the criminal code. It is governed by judgment, discretion, and the ability to recognize disqualifying circumstances before they harden into irreversible failure. Presidents are not evaluated on whether they barely cleared the threshold for indictment. They are evaluated on whether they exercised discernment when warning signs were obvious and alternatives were available.
Jeffrey Epstein was not an ambiguous figure. He was a convicted sex offender whose exploitation of minors was established beyond dispute. Long before his 2019 federal arrest, and following his 2008 plea involving a minor, his reputation was widely known. His conduct was not a rumor circulating in dark corners; it was a matter of public record.
Beyond the facts established in court, there are additional allegations reflected in civil filings and document releases. They remain unresolved and should not be treated as proven.
A serious argument does not rely on them, and this one does not need to. Even stripped to the minimum of adjudicated reality, Epstein was a man any competent adult with power and options should have avoided. The claim that association was legal does nothing to alter that judgment.
John Wayne Gacy and Jeffrey Dahmer were extreme cases: serial killers whose crimes unfolded over time, involved multiple victims, and left lasting harm not only to those they murdered but to families and communities permanently marked by that violence.
Hypothetically, it was not itself a crime to have spent time with them; mere association, standing alone, is not a prosecutable act. But once the scope of their conduct became known, continued social association would have signaled a profound failure of judgment. That is why comparisons to figures like Gacy or Dahmer are clarifying rather than reckless.
They test judgment, not legality. Society instinctively understands that continued social association with known perpetrators of extreme harm would be disqualifying on its face, even absent criminal liability for the associate. In practice, no elite social migration followed their convictions; association collapsed because judgment reasserted itself.
Objections to the comparison misunderstand its purpose. The analogy is not about method or spectacle, nor about body count. It is about the scale and duration of harm, the credibility of victim testimony, and what was reasonably knowable to those in a perpetrator’s orbit.
After Gacy and Dahmer were exposed, social association ended. Epstein’s case unfolded differently. He was convicted of abusing a minor, later charged by federal prosecutors with sex trafficking underage girls, and accused by numerous victims of operating a years-long system of recruitment, coercion, and abuse—yet he remained socially connected to wealthy and powerful figures long after his conviction.
Legal experts, investigators, and civil filings have long warned that the full scope of Epstein’s conduct may never be known, and that the number of victims likely exceeds those publicly identified. Even without proof of homicide, the scale, duration, and persistence of the harm alleged—and the fact that it was publicly knowable—place Epstein squarely in the category of figures any competent adult should have recognized as morally disqualifying to associate with.
That is what makes the Epstein case more disturbing, not less: the failure was not merely individual, but collective.
After Gacy and Dahmer were exposed, they became social pariahs; association ended because judgment reasserted itself. After Epstein’s conviction involving a minor, the opposite occurred. He remained socially embedded among wealthy and powerful figures, signaling that status, access, and utility were permitted to outweigh the known abuse of children.
That normalization—treating a convicted child sex offender as a peer rather than a warning sign—is the moral failure at issue. If a public figure were photographed repeatedly socializing with John Wayne Gacy after his crimes were known, no serious person would defend it by saying, “Well, it wasn’t illegal.” The response would be simpler and more damning: what does that say about his judgment?
That distinction is precisely what Blanche’s defense erases—and the erasure itself is the harm. The analogy is not about proving criminal guilt by proximity; it is about recognizing that certain associations are morally discrediting on their face, and that adults entrusted with power are expected to recognize when proximity itself signals indifference to grave harm.
By retreating to legality alone, Blanche collapses moral judgment into criminal liability and presents the minimum standard for indictment as if it were an adequate standard for leadership. (see rest of essay at link)
…eintellectualistofficial.substack.com/p/trump-deputy…
3/3: Truth doesn’t survive on its own. Independent journalism depends on people who step in. We’re working toward 1,000 subscribers. Your support keeps accurate, independent reporting alive, and makes you part of it. 🧵
…eintellectualistofficial.substack.com
…eintellectualistofficial.substack.com
@Museplaystate45 @geerothvoss @jk_rowling 1. Harry Potter theatrical productions can be described as connected to JKR, but Callender doesn't. They only partnered up to produce that one play.
2. The person inquired IF epstein knew Rowling. I haven't been able to find if this anonymous person got an answer.
2. The person inquired IF epstein knew Rowling. I haven't been able to find if this anonymous person got an answer.
@Museplaystate45 @geerothvoss @jk_rowling So...this doesn't confirm much.
I think we should be more restrained about whom we ascribe blame to*. The actual culprits are waiting for the chance to hide behind the falsely accused and cry "moral panic!"
*does not mean anyone should be above questioning or suspicion, though
I think we should be more restrained about whom we ascribe blame to*. The actual culprits are waiting for the chance to hide behind the falsely accused and cry "moral panic!"
*does not mean anyone should be above questioning or suspicion, though
@Museplaystate45 @geerothvoss @jk_rowling This is dogshit as far as evidence goes, but collin callender follows jkr on the Twitter, but jkr doesn't follow him back. Not that he's active on here.
Sikorski: The Nobel Peace Prize is of some interest. Right now, prime ministers get letters. As foreign ministers, we have the right to nominate.
If President Trump secures a fair peace for Ukraine, I shall do it myself. But it's I who will decide what a fair peace is. 1/
If President Trump secures a fair peace for Ukraine, I shall do it myself. But it's I who will decide what a fair peace is. 1/
Sikorski: Norwegian air defense systems and F-35s were the 1st to help protect the Polish sky. Defense cooperation has been growing steadily and effectively.
Together we are helping Ukrainian soldiers who can now train in Poland in camps. 2/
Together we are helping Ukrainian soldiers who can now train in Poland in camps. 2/
Sikorski: Our locations give us a strategic role in the regions near to Russia. Poland is between East and West. In NATO, they used to joke that God created Poland for tank warfare.
We are trying to get away from that. We like to think of ourselves as southern Scandinavia. 3/
We are trying to get away from that. We like to think of ourselves as southern Scandinavia. 3/
The press (legacy and new) and the investing public seem to have no idea what the Obama Administration launched in the Consolidated Audit Trail and what current SEC is currently doing--computer searches of OUR private data without any basis! @NCLAlegal 1/
2/ I'm frankly shocked that more civil libertarians aren't screaming about this! And now SEC is trying to delay Plaintiffs' day in court! Details here: nclalegal.org/feds-are-steal…
3/ More background from when @NCLAlegal filed suit @FDRLST thefederalist.com/2024/04/16/law…
Roger Froikin @rlefraim wrote, "Just for information:
The U.S. Supreme Court will soon make a decision affecting citizenship—birthright citizenship—so here is some explanation for those interested.
1)
The U.S. Supreme Court will soon make a decision affecting citizenship—birthright citizenship—so here is some explanation for those interested.
1)
Citizenship in the USA was not really defined until the passage of the 14th Amendment in 1868, other than in the qualifications of the President and Vice President, where both offices could be held only by someone born in what became a U.S. state.
2)
2)
The 14th Amendment made all those born in the United States or naturalized as citizens of the United States of America. These could be called constitutional citizens.
There have been two Supreme Court cases questioning this kind of status.
3)
There have been two Supreme Court cases questioning this kind of status.
3)
🧵 The alleged “opening” of the #Rafah crossing must be understood as a component of Israel’s ongoing genocide in #Gaza: despite claims of humanitarian access, only 5 critically ill Palestinians were allowed to leave Gaza through Rafah (@WHO)& only 12 were allowed to return. /1
Gaza’s Ministry of Health reports that approximately 20,000 Palestinians require medical evacuation, inc. 440 critical cases.
🔴 They estimate it would take years to evacuate them if the crossing continues to operate at this rate & 10 critically ill people will die every day./2
🔴 They estimate it would take years to evacuate them if the crossing continues to operate at this rate & 10 critically ill people will die every day./2
Even if the reported 50 patients/day, only on foot, were permitted by Israel to evacuate, it would still take 400 days to evacuate all those currently in need of medical attention. /3
🔗 palestine.un.org/en/309353-gaza…
🔗 palestine.un.org/en/309353-gaza…
I’ve been involved in a lot of hard dog rescues in my time. But none quite like tonight.
We’ve been trying to catch this boy for a week after being sent this photo. He’s a wild street dog.
It looks like we’ve saved his life… (1/7) 🧵
We’ve been trying to catch this boy for a week after being sent this photo. He’s a wild street dog.
It looks like we’ve saved his life… (1/7) 🧵
We’ve failed on 6 previous attempts. Sedation, traps, nets and many of us in the fields. He has been too scared.
We’ve probably used 50 man hours trying to catch him.
We even darted him once but he got away into the jungle (2/7)
We’ve probably used 50 man hours trying to catch him.
We even darted him once but he got away into the jungle (2/7)
We got him tonight after an epic chase.
It was life or death. The wound on his face was full of maggots and flies. I’ve shared the pic from a distance to not shock but his face was being eaten alive (3/7)
It was life or death. The wound on his face was full of maggots and flies. I’ve shared the pic from a distance to not shock but his face was being eaten alive (3/7)
1).
„Lord Mandelson is to step down from the House of Lords after it emerged he leaked confidential government emails to Jeffrey Epstein.
„Lord Mandelson is to step down from the House of Lords after it emerged he leaked confidential government emails to Jeffrey Epstein.
2).
[...] [Peter Mandelson] who was serving as business secretary in Gordon Brown’s cabinet, shared market-sensitive information with Epstein that the paedophile could have used to make money.”
Feb. 3, 2026
[...] [Peter Mandelson] who was serving as business secretary in Gordon Brown’s cabinet, shared market-sensitive information with Epstein that the paedophile could have used to make money.”
Feb. 3, 2026
3).
𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕯𝖆𝖎𝖑𝖞 𝕿𝖊𝖑𝖊𝖌𝖗𝖆𝖕𝖍 (@Telegraph) web.archive.org/web/2026020315…
𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕯𝖆𝖎𝖑𝖞 𝕿𝖊𝖑𝖊𝖌𝖗𝖆𝖕𝖍 (@Telegraph) web.archive.org/web/2026020315…
